Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Return of Ramirez

The Colorado Supreme Court has issued an amended opinion in the Ramirez case (see our posts of 3/27/07, 3/28/07, 4/1/07, & 4/4/07). In footnote 10, the court now cites its earlier decision in Wilkerson, distinguishing it on the basis that the Wilkerson expert offered a quantitative conclusion, whereas the Ramirez expert did not.

In a related vein, Jim Beck and Mark Herrmann comment at Drug and Device Law on the proposal, floated in comment e to section 28 of Tentative Draft #5 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, to abolish the "reasonable medical certainty" requirement. They take umbrage at the proposal, whereas we do not. We'll have more to say in a day or so.



Beck and Herrmann writes ...

You've said we're wrong. That's OK, we're used to our opponents making such statements. But you've promised a critique in a couple of days. It's been almost a month and we're still waiting.

Whatever you put up, we'll do our best to shoot it down - we promise.

Beck and Herrmann

6:44 PM  
pn writes ...

Well, we like to be sportsmanlike, and it is taking a little more time than expected to compose a response that will be rebuttable.

9:17 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Fed. R. Evid. 702: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.